Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Forerunners CANNOT be Humans.
  • Subject: Forerunners CANNOT be Humans.
Subject: Forerunners CANNOT be Humans.
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Bring the noise, you seem pretty good at accusing others of things, but are incapable of providing any facts or argument to back you up. Now you are starting to act just childish, if you don't have anything to back your insults up with, then I am done talking with you. At any rate, you assume all creationists are of the same frame of mind as the people who made that site you linked to. Similary I could say that all evolutionists are left wing wackos with no morals, bent on making the US fail no matter the cost and clinging to a baseless hypothesis. But I won't because some evolutionists aren't like that.

  • 04.20.2004 12:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations



You have said a few times that there is little to no proof of evolution, and much proof of creation, yet I have seen none. I find that the fact that well over 90% of geologist and biologist claim evolution as fact, through there study and findings proof enough. If you really want me to go into it deeper I can. I'm still waiting for proof, or the opinion of an unbiased scientist that creation is true. Any evidence you could come up with would be great.


  • 04.20.2004 1:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

As I said before I never said that creation has more evidence than evolution. And did you even read my very long post on 3 of the 4 sources where evolution gets its "evidence" from? Read that and tell me those are still good sources of evidence. Most scientists today cling to evolution and claim it all to be facts solely because they don't want to accept creation.

  • 04.20.2004 1:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Though if you want me to find evidence on creation I can, I'll just have to do some research.

  • 04.20.2004 1:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

stupidest post ever.

  • 04.20.2004 2:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shael
As I said before I never said that creation has more evidence than evolution. And did you even read my very long post on 3 of the 4 sources where evolution gets its "evidence" from? Read that and tell me those are still good sources of evidence. Most scientists today cling to evolution and claim it all to be facts solely because they don't want to accept creation.



Posted by: Shael
The original poster missed one vital point in his theory, you assume the big bang actualy happened and that macro-evolution is real. There is an abundance of blatantly obvious evidence that proves Macro-evolution to be false and precious little evidence to prove it to be true and even then most of it is made up or doesn't make sense at all



Try to keep yourself straight, and yes I would love some scientific proof of creation, or any proof actually

  • 04.20.2004 2:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

clicky

  • 04.20.2004 2:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You are going to have a hard time finding any credible scientific papers to support creation. They are nearly non-existant. See while real scientist try to find answers to complicated questions involving evolution. Creationist scientist simply ask the the questions repeatedly. That is the difference. You say scientist cling to evolution, however these same scientist are the ones trying to find the answers. I have yet to read one creationist paper that trys to answer any questions

  • 04.20.2004 2:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You still haven't answered any of the points I listed in my long post(no the short one you keep quoting over and over, the one on page six where I adress 3 of the main sources of evolutions evidence). As for scientific evidence, just look around you, this vastly complex universe wasn't created by chance, the whole univerese points to a higher being that created it. Not to mention all the historic evidence and common sense conclusions. But I'd like to see your thoughts on my arguments agains evolutions sources of evidence.

  • 04.20.2004 2:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

LoL, it seems you may be having some problems, or you are busy. Either way here is a site to keep you busy for a while clicky

  • 04.20.2004 2:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think this battle is heating up beyond the forum and soon we will have a civil war right here over the halo stuff cool it guys although many good points have been made either way you shouldn't be taking insults or throwing them

  • 04.20.2004 2:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shael
You still haven't answered any of the points I listed in my long post(no the short one you keep quoting over and over, the one on page six where I adress 3 of the main sources of evolutions evidence). As for scientific evidence, just look around you, this vastly complex universe wasn't created by chance, the whole univerese points to a higher being that created it. Not to mention all the historic evidence and common sense conclusions. But I'd like to see your thoughts on my arguments agains evolutions sources of evidence.




No I haven't seen your post yet, I will look now. Great scientific evidence (note sarcasm) when you say look around you. You have put forth 0 evidence, just a bunch of jargon. I will go look at your post and see what I can tell you about it. I would still like you to put forth some sort of evidence other than look around you lol.

  • 04.20.2004 2:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

actually, the forerunners are hobbits... tricksy hobbits..

  • 04.20.2004 3:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Its hard to prove scientificaly something that you have no way of reproducing, thats why I said I would have to do research into various other fields like history, but it really comes down to faith for both sides. You can't reproduce either evolution or creation in a lab for observation so you will never beable to prove scientifically either one. But anyone who has done indepth studies on evolution and is willing to accept the truth will come to the conclusion that there is no real evidence for evolution.

  • 04.20.2004 3:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Good theory and nice research, but there are some flaws. Such as evidence in rocks that suggest the earth is only several thousands of years old and what about god?

  • 04.20.2004 3:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have just read the first page of posts and the last couple and it seems you guys are trying to confirm Forerunners to humans from scientific research. Dont base your ideas of games on Science. It leads to alot of problems :)

  • 04.20.2004 3:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

umm, HALO ISN'T REALITY. This is why the humans are the forerunners:
guilty spark said during a cut scene for the maw... "all of our lost history"
it said "our" not "your" so obviously because guilty spark was built by the forerunners to utilize HALO as a weapon to stop the flood, by saying "our" it implies that the humans built HALO and are, in fact, the forerunners. This would also be hilarious and ironic because the covenant greatly respect the forerunners' ancient artifacts.

  • 04.20.2004 3:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: NodnarB
Good theory and nice research, but there are some flaws. Such as evidence in rocks that suggest the earth is only several thousands of years old and what about god?


Is that directed towards serpx or me?

  • 04.20.2004 3:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

it was directed towards that dude who was talking about amino acids and the big bang thing

  • 04.20.2004 3:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ah, ok.

  • 04.20.2004 3:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Hmmm ok let's get started. First macro-evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory. There is a difference between the two. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.


Ahh the old missing link arguement. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. So I challenge you to show me your proof that fossil records show that evolution is false. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.


Ahh the complexity arguement. "Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life. Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.


I need to come up for air for a bit. This should be enough to satisfy you for a bit. One major problem that I see is that you are still basing every arguement you make on Darwin's findings, however his findings have been expanded, added to, and corrected over the last 143 years.














  • 04.20.2004 3:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shael
Its hard to prove scientificaly something that you have no way of reproducing, thats why I said I would have to do research into various other fields like history, but it really comes down to faith for both sides. You can't reproduce either evolution or creation in a lab for observation so you will never beable to prove scientifically either one. But anyone who has done indepth studies on evolution and is willing to accept the truth will come to the conclusion that there is no real evidence for evolution.



First, that is exactly what you are asking me to do. I am doing what I can, even though I am a couple of years away from my masters. When a creationist starts to bring faith into the discussion, the debate is all but over. To the last part of your post I would say the study you have done on evolution is anything but indepth. When you do some indepth studying, only then can you come to any conclusion. To say that there is no real evidence for evolution is to say you know nothing of the subject.

  • 04.20.2004 3:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: NodnarB
Good theory and nice research, but there are some flaws. Such as evidence in rocks that suggest the earth is only several thousands of years old and what about god?



This should answer your question about the age of the earth. clicky

  • 04.20.2004 3:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Those are some valid points, but really they only refer to the Fossil record, which even with those statements is unconclusive at best. As for evolutionary tree of the horse, it has already been discovered that those fossils had been found all over the globe. There is no site in the world where an evolutionary sequence for any particular organism can be gathered. Clearly if each member of the sequence evolved from the previous member they would have to at least be on the same continent. Geography being the first problem with it, the second is the fact that macroevolution demands that the first member of the sequence must have lived before the next. The fact is, however, that Eohippus(the first member of the sequence) has in rock strata just as near to the surface as Equus(the modern horse). Infact all of the members of the sequence appear at almost random depths in the layers of strata. Instead geologists have admitted that all of these creatures lived at the same time. That alone makes the Evolutionary Sequence of the Horse invald. I'm sure given enough research all other sequences would be similar. So far there has been no real missing link between the ape and man and the scientist saying that the whale had an ancestor with four legs has no proof.

  • 04.20.2004 4:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Shael
Though if you want me to find evidence on creation I can, I'll just have to do some research.




Still waiting.

  • 04.20.2004 4:05 PM PDT